[governance] WSIS Forum location : the main issues

Tue Sep 7 06:36:57 EDT 2010

Dear all,

Discussions on the list regarding the proposal to hold WSIS Forum 2011 in
New York highlight that there are several parallel and interrelated
dimensions. In a nutshell, the main elements to consider seem to me as
follows (and the rationale for each is detailed below) :

- the WSIS Forum should not become an overall WSIS review but is one of the
two legs of the implementation process, focusing on development and the
catalysis of projects
- irrespective of the issue of the location, the positive trend towards
multi-stakeholder preparation should be continued, through the formation for
instance of a MAG
- the choice of location could be initially linked to the lead agency in
chairmanship of UNGIS in a given year, but geographic rotation is desirable
in a longer term perspective to avoid holding the meeting only in Europe or
the US
- visa and cost issues are not in favor of New York, and would need to be
addressed if New York is retained this year or in the future, to ensure
broad participation
- a decoupling in time of the WSIS Forum and the May meetings in Geneva
could be beneficial
- raising awareness among New York diplomats is a worthy objective, but
should be timed appropriately to maximize impact and avoid backlash
- the discussion on the WSIS Forum and its future should keep in mind its
desirable articulation with the IGF and the possible contribution of both to
the preparation of the general WSIS review in 2015 (whatever name it
takes).

More detailed arguments below.

1) The natural function of the WSIS Forum

We know it is not an explicit decision from the Summit, as it emerged from
the organization of the "cluster of WSIS-related events". The shift to the
label WSIS Forum last year indicates a desire to make it the annual review
of the progress in implementation in all aspects, including Internet
Governance. In other terms, it is a move to make it an overall umbrella,
covering also the IGF (cf. the idea that has been floated to ultimately
merge the two) and to somehow preempt the review role of the CSTD. However,
it makes more sense to consider it as *the second leg of the implementation
process* : the IGF dealing with policy issues and the WSIS Forum dealing
more with actual projects and concrete actions : the various actors
describing their programs, the difficulties encountered on the ground, and
exchanging best practices that can be replicated. Discussion on location
should not forget this *first fundamental alternative* : the WSIS Forum as
the overall implementation review process (overseeing the IGF) or IGF and
WSIS Forum as two complementary processes to catalyze progress. The first
option could lead to internet governance issues becoming again the center
political battle and the real development agenda being sidelined. The Plan
of Action is more than Internet Governance and the concrete projects
dimension deserves to be fully addressed.

2) Making its preparation more multi-stakeholder

The WSIS Forum has adopted from the beginning an open door policy, which is
a good thing. Furthermore, open consultations (however limited) have been
introduced last year and this is a noteworthy progress, probably obtained
because the IGF practice set a benchmark in that respect (a good example of
the percolation of the IGF method). However, the Agenda, the format and the
selection of panelist are still under the responsibility of the organizing
Agencies (mostly led by ITU). The creation of *a Multi-stakeholder Advisory
Group (MAG) for the WSIS Forum* would improve the preparatory process and
guarantee equal representation of the different groups. The modalities of
preparation of the meeting are probably as important as its location.

3) The role of the convenor

Initially, the meeting (the cluster of action lines) was organized by the
ITU alone with the meeting taking place in ITU premises. More recently, the
concept is that this event is organized by the "lead facilitating Agencies"
(ITU, Unesco, DESA and UNCTAD if I'm not mistaken), even if the ITU
maintains a prominent role and most of the meetings still take place in the
ITU building. It would probably make sense to push the logic a bit further
and consider that, as they rotate in their chairmanship of the UNGIS, the *lead
facilitators rotate accordingly in their responsibility to be the
convenor/organizer of the WSIS Forum*. In that context, holding the WSIS
Forum in New York should not be considered as a permanent move, but as
corresponding to DESA being in the rotating chairmanship. Is it DESA's turn
next year ? or Unesco ? And if it is Unesco, would they be ready to do so,
now or later ?

4) Geographic rotation

Discussions on the list and Wolfgang's comments in particular point to the
potential benefits of holding the WSIS Forum in different parts of the
world. The choice should not be limited to Europe and the United States
because of the location of the lead agencies. In this respect, again, any
holding of the WSIS Forum in New York in 2011 or later, should not be
considered as a permanent move but at most as a first step towards *a
geographical rotation facilitating outreach* to different regions of the
world.

5) Ensuring broad participation (Visas and other logistical issues)

A clear objective for the IGC is maximizing participation. The difficulty to
obtain visas for the US (and costs) is probably the major objection
regarding holding the WSIS Forum in New York. However, Anriette and Shaila
have highlighted that significant events have been organized in New York
with appropriate participation form actors around the world, provided some
specific measure are taken (fellowships in particular). Likewise, Milton and
Ginger highlight the capacity to attract organizations from the North and
Latin America that have cost problems flying to Europe (this is the reason
why geographical rotation is suggested).  So, as Meryem rightly reminds us,
the* visa and cost factors are not the only elements to take into account* :
the political background is probably more important. In any case, *a special
effort *in terms of visa obtention for all participants and financial
support is a prerequisite if the WSIS Forum goes to New York this year or
later.

6) Timing

The WSIS Forum has traditionally been co-located with the IGF consultations
and the CSTD meeting in May in Geneva, indeed facilitating participation and
reducing costs. However, the whole compact period of two to three weeks is
relatively difficult to manage in heavy agendas and schedules. Furthermore,
if (as mentioned in point 1 above) the WSIS Forum is mostly about practical
implementation rather than covering everything including Internet
Governance, then the overlap in terms of participants is limited. *Decoupling
the WSIS Forum in time from the IGF consultations and CSTD meetings* could
even diversify the participation and help focus the WSIS Forum on the
development agenda rather than a rehash of Internet Governance issues.
Finally, leaving some time between the WSIS Forum and the CSTD meeting would
allow the CSTD to receive a formal input from the WSIS Forum, something that
is not possible when the two meetings are only days apart, as it is today.

7) Capacity to influence New York diplomats

Provided the WSIS Forum is truly multi-stakeholder, open and participatory
(including in its preparation), there could be some merit in *exposing New
York diplomats to this particular methodology*. But it can be a two-edged
sword, if it triggers a counter-reaction from more traditionally inclined
governments that could negatively impact the discussions in the UN GA in
2011 on "improvements" to the IGF.
On a side note, Lee indicated on the list that media presence in New York
could be a way to get attention. But is media attention what is needed in
2011 or a stronger focus on concrete projects ?

8) The 2015 perspective

There will be a general review of the WSIS implementation in 2015 (this is
paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda). And there is a great likelihood that
some countries will push in the ITU Plenipotentiary for a new Summit (a WSIS
III) at that date. However, if the multistakeholder approach consecrated in
Tunis is to be respected, an event in 2015 (whatever its name) *should **not
** be held along the same format as in Geneva or Tunis*. It must be a truly
multi-stakeholder format, building upon the experience of both the IGF and
the WSIS Forum. In such a context, the WSIS Forum and the IGF in the next
five years would be *the two natural preparatory spaces* for the two
dimensions of implementation : concrete projects and programs on the one
hand and Internet Governance on the other. This eliminates the need for
rigid PrepComs and could encourage the two spaces to progressively catalyze
proposals (recommendations ?) to be endorsed by the 2015 event.

I hope this helps clarify the challenges and the different dimensions of the
debate and can facilitate the preparation of an IGC position. My three cents
(because the post is long :-)

Best

Bertrand

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100907/169e5950/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t